RAF Resilience Assessment Framework—A Tool to Support Cities’ Action Planning

Urban areas are dynamic, facing evolving hazards, having interacting strategic services and assets. Their management involves multiple stakeholders bringing additional complexity. Potential impacts of climate dynamics may aggravate current conditions and the appearance of new hazards. These challenges require an integrated and forward-looking approach to resilient and sustainable urban development, being essential to identify the real needs for its achievement. Several frameworks for assessing resilience have been developed in different fields. However, considering the focus on climate change and urban services, specific needs were identified, particularly in assessing strategic urban sectors and their interactions with others and with the wider urban system. A resilience assessment framework was developed directing and facilitating an objective-driven resilience diagnosis of urban cities and services. This supports the decision on selection of resilience measures and the development of strategies to enhance resilience, outlining a path to co-build resilience action plans, and to track resilience progress in the city or service over time. This paper presents the framework and the main results of its application to three cities having diverse contexts. It was demonstrated that the framework highlights where cities and urban services stand, regarding resilience to climate change, and identifies the most critical aspects to improve, including expected future impacts.


Introduction
Urban areas are complex, vulnerable and continuously evolving systems. In these dynamic areas, the existence of interacting strategic services and of interdependent services and assets, as well as the involvement of a multiplicity of stakeholders, adds complexity to their management. Besides, the significant impacts of climate dynamics (such as intense precipitation events, tidal effects, droughts or heat waves) in the urban strategic services, people, natural environment and economy, as well as the aggravation of current conditions and the emergence of new hazards, also need to be considered in their management [1,2].
As referred to in Reference [3], following the World Economic Forum 2014, by 2050, exposure of city dwellers to various hazards, including earthquakes, tsunamis, urban floods, cyclones and storm surges, is expected to double. These challenges require an integrated and forward-looking approach to  [15] City Resilience Framework 156 [13] UNDRR Disaster Resilience Scorecard for cities 47 preliminaries 117 detailed [8,9] City Resilience Index to Sea Level Rise 13 [18] Climate Disaster Resilience Index 120 [19] Climate Disaster Resilience Index 82 [20] Climate Resilience Screening Index 117 [16] Flood Resilience Index 91 [21] Resilience Factor Index 17 [22] Community disaster resilience 26 [23] • The services within the RAF scope are those comprised in the urban water cycle, water supply, wastewater and storm water and those having interconnections and interdependencies, closely related with the water services: waste management, electrical energy supply and mobility.

•
The external context of the city and services is considered by a standard characterisation profile of the city and of the services, since it is fundamental to identify the main threats and to support the assessment, particularly the interpretation of results.

•
The city and services multi-scale, multi-sectoral, multi-hazards and interdependencies are addressed, meaning that the RAF incorporates: different scales-city, services and infrastructure, the diverse sectors presented above, assessment of several hazards and of aspects related to interdependencies between different services and infrastructures.

•
The continuous improvement principle [11] is followed and, since cities are dynamic, it addresses the progress of the strategies' implementation and considers their effect, before, during and after an event and changes in circumstances.

•
The long-, medium-and short-terms are incorporated considering three different and aligned assessment levels for the city, services and infrastructures (strategic-overlooking a long-term planning horizon and requiring the involvement of the entire organisation, addressing the overall city and considering its vision; tactical-overlooking a medium-term planning horizon and addressing departmental or sectoral activities in the city, services and infrastructure; and operational-referring to short-term horizon, addresses the actions to be taken in the effective implementation of measures in the city, services and infrastructure) while, as an integrated assessment, addresses the two first. • A flexible structure is used, based on assessment metrics, allowing it to be expanded to other resilience drivers, dimensions or services.
The development and implementation of the assessment process, in collaboration with different stakeholders, promotes their empowerment and enhance their role in the decision-making process [26], as well as in the implementation of improvement solutions. To consider this, the RAF development was carried out in a stepwise process (Figure 1), comprising the analysis of existing assessment frameworks and related recommendations, and the definition of a preliminary proposal, which was validated to produce the final version. • The continuous improvement principle [11] is followed and, since cities are dynamic, it addresses the progress of the strategies' implementation and considers their effect, before, during and after an event and changes in circumstances. • The long-, medium-and short-terms are incorporated considering three different and aligned assessment levels for the city, services and infrastructures (strategic-overlooking a long-term planning horizon and requiring the involvement of the entire organisation, addressing the overall city and considering its vision; tactical-overlooking a medium-term planning horizon and addressing departmental or sectoral activities in the city, services and infrastructure; and operational-referring to short-term horizon, addresses the actions to be taken in the effective implementation of measures in the city, services and infrastructure) while, as an integrated assessment, addresses the two first. • A flexible structure is used, based on assessment metrics, allowing it to be expanded to other resilience drivers, dimensions or services. The development and implementation of the assessment process, in collaboration with different stakeholders, promotes their empowerment and enhance their role in the decision-making process [26], as well as in the implementation of improvement solutions. To consider this, the RAF development was carried out in a stepwise process (Figure 1), comprising the analysis of existing assessment frameworks and related recommendations, and the definition of a preliminary proposal, which was validated to produce the final version. The validation process included an external and an internal validation [26]. The external validation involved different stakeholders, representatives of research organisations, city departments and urban service utilities, allowing for incorporating their concerns as well as their own context and reality through collaborative workshops. Three workshops were implemented in each city, Barcelona (Spain), Lisbon (Portugal) and Bristol (UK), to obtain the stakeholders' opinion on the RAF relevance, structure and applicability, as well as their concerns, own context and reality. Overall, 24 to 38 stakeholders attended each of the sessions, from 13 to 24 different organisations, The validation process included an external and an internal validation [26]. The external validation involved different stakeholders, representatives of research organisations, city departments and urban Sustainability 2020, 12, 2349 5 of 64 service utilities, allowing for incorporating their concerns as well as their own context and reality through collaborative workshops. Three workshops were implemented in each city, Barcelona (Spain), Lisbon (Portugal) and Bristol (UK), to obtain the stakeholders' opinion on the RAF relevance, structure and applicability, as well as their concerns, own context and reality. Overall, 24 to 38 stakeholders attended each of the sessions, from 13 to 24 different organisations, answering individually and by sector to several surveys.
To ensure coherence, feasibility and effectiveness of the approach, the internal validation was carried out in the abovementioned cities, having different characteristics and contexts, which applied this framework involving the respective stakeholders. Each city and respective services provided their own data and answers to all applicable metrics. From the external and internal validation analysis, it was possible to identify the RAF components that benefited from additional improvements and those that less fitted the cities' available information, thus supporting the development of the final framework herein presented. It is important to take into account that cities are multi-dimension entities and, therefore, urban resilience needs to consider multidisciplinary insights. Additionally, resilience of a city is determined by diverse interacting systems and their relationships. For this reason, resilience also depends on the overall performance, interactions and capacity of its systems in their everyday operation, not solely on its ability to cope with specific natural hazards or to adapt targeted areas to the impacts of climate change [27]. Thus, it is essential to address interdependencies and cascading effects [28]. Another relevant aspect is that it needs to include both sudden crises as well as interacting long-term stressors, address multiple hazards, characterise the specific geographic extent, consider physical dimensions, involve community members and be adaptable and scalable to different communities and changing circumstances [24]. These requirements were considered in the RAF development.

RAF-Resilience Assessment Framework Description
RAF sought alignment with international frameworks for resilience assessment, particularly with UNDRR Disaster Resilience Scorecard, both preliminary and detailed levels [6,7], and UN-Habitat, and made significant developments with regard to its scope and focus on urban services. The RAF considers the UN-Habitat resilience dimensions [29]: organisational (integrates top-down governance relations and urban population involvement, at the city level), spatial (referring to urban space and environment), functional (resilience of strategic services) and physical (resilience of services infrastructure). Time dimension is implicitly integrated as part of the analysis. The RAF (Table 2) has a hierarchical tree structure ( Figure 2) meaning that, for each dimension, resilience objectives are defined, representing the ambitions to be achieved in the medium-long term by the city and services. For those dimensions related to the urban services, they firstly unfold into sub-dimensions, where each sub-dimension represents one service to be assessed. Each objective is described by a set of criteria that translate the different points of view associated with it. Each criterion assembles the respective assessment metrics, through which it is possible to classify the resilience development level by comparison with reference values. Metrics are then defined consisting in questions, parameters or functions used to assess the criteria. Some of the RAF metrics correspond to or were adapted from existing frameworks, mainly from UNDRR framework (former UNISDR)-found to be highly relevant for the scope of the RAF, and others were newly developed. In Appendix A, the complete structure is presented. As an example, Table 3 illustrates the metrics definition to assess, within the spatial dimension, the objective of spatial risk management from the perspective given by the criterion impacts of climate-related events, showing the hierarchical tree structure mentioned above. UNISDR)-found to be highly relevant for the scope of the RAF, and others were newly developed. In Appendix A, the complete structure is presented. As an example, Table 3 illustrates the metrics definition to assess, within the spatial dimension, the objective of spatial risk management from the perspective given by the criterion impacts of climate-related events, showing the hierarchical tree structure mentioned above. The framework considers past, existing and future conditions in the assessment. To incorporate the uncertainties associated to expected variations in climate-related variables, some metrics are   Consider urban footprint as a spatial extent of urbanised areas on a regional scale. The framework considers past, existing and future conditions in the assessment. To incorporate the uncertainties associated to expected variations in climate-related variables, some metrics are specific to CC assessment scenarios, namely those that address preparedness for CC, and that anticipate the city and services' exposure or vulnerability to future scenarios. Besides, the consideration of reference values allows to generally address uncertainties in the assessment. A relevance degree is assigned to each metric, namely: essential, corresponding to all metrics with higher relevance, required to integrate the resilience assessment of any city or service, complementary, additional metrics to be considered whenever integration of city or service specific aspects is sought, corresponding to a more detailed resilience assessment and comprehensive, additional metrics recommended whenever a more in-depth assessment is aimed, for a city or service with higher maturity in its resilience path. Accordingly, depending on the resilience maturity, the city or service aiming to apply the RAF may select a given set of metrics, according to their relevance.
Additionally, every city or urban service needs to operate in its own specific political, economic, geographical, climatic and cultural context. Considering the context information is fundamental in interpreting any assessment. Following this, city and services' characterisation profiles were developed to integrate the RAF framework, regarding its scope and focus. These profiles require information on geographical characteristics, climate, population, economy and governance, built environment and infrastructures, for the city. Regarding each service, it considers information on context characterisation, climate and infrastructure assets.

General
In order to test and validate the RAF to assess the cities' resilience to climate change with a focus on the water cycle, it was applied to Bristol (UK), Barcelona (Spain) and Lisbon (Portugal) by the respective cities and strategic services managers. These three cities represent diverse context characteristics as well as different climate change-related concerns. The application was undertaken using the RAF App, a web-based application tool reproducing the RAF structure that allows selection of applicable dimensions and services to assess and allows private submission of answers to the metrics. The results may be visualised graphically (Figures 1-3) and reports are also provided [30].

Bristol
Located in the south-west England, predominantly on a limestone area, Bristol is one of the most densely populated parts of the UK and, after London, the second largest city in the southern region. Most of the urban extent of Bristol is based around the watercourses and river network, with two major rivers flowing through the city (Avon and Frome rivers), resulting in a characteristically hilly landscape. It is one of the warmest cities in the UK and there is a relatively even distribution of rainfall throughout the year, although the autumn and winter seasons tend to be the wettest. Within this context, Bristol has been investing in plans to create and improve resilient systems to tackle its various urban challenges. Based on the analyses conducted by local and international actors working on resilience, the main urban challenges in Bristol can be profiled firstly in terms of natural and environmental hazards and secondly with regards to broader socio-economic issues. Bristol has suffered from significant flooding in the past, with the floating harbour and low-lying city centre being identified as key areas vulnerable to tidal, fluvial and groundwater flooding. The flood of 1968 was one of the most significant and damaging flooding events in the city, caused by both surface water and fluvial flooding that resulted in high damages and impacts to the city and its inhabitants. The construction of large interceptor tunnels in response to this, to divert exceedance flows higher up in the catchment, reduced fluvial flood risk in the city. In 2012, significant flooding occurred across most of the UK due to some of the highest rainfall events since record collection began. During this time, the most notable single flood event lasted two days, with 30 houses internally flooded and many more suffering flooding of gardens, garages and driveways. In order to better manage flood risks in Bristol area, a 'Local Flood Risk Management Strategy' was produced and released in early 2018. The Strategy sets out the Bristol City Council vision for managing flood risk in the city, together with other organisations that have a role in flood-risk management [29]. Bristol City Council has already developed an intensive work towards resilience, and it is proactively committed to increase Bristol's resilience: from social cohesion Sustainability 2020, 12, 2349 9 of 64 to economic stresses and by enhancing resilience to all sources of flooding. The resilience of the city to climate change (CC) can be highly related to its urban services' resilience, their interdependencies and cascade effects. For Bristol, the resilience assessment was undertaken for the flooding hazard related to rainfall and sea level variables, by its importance regarding Bristol resilience to CC. reliance on electricity without alternative provisions is a notable limitation (Figure 3c). Resilience standards to adhere to as well as the position of a Chief Resilience Officer being eliminated make for more areas lacking in Bristol. Learning from past events is a commendable action performed well in Bristol, but the running of emergency scenarios and drills does not appear to be simulated enough to gain its full benefit (Figure 3d). The known threats of a significant proportion from sea level rise and increased rainfall present an extreme level of vulnerability to the city and its inhabitants. There are, however, also opportunities presented, though through the declaration of a climate emergency in Bristol, they require drastic action implemented via a climate strategy. The chance for properly applying climate adaptation measures utilising the knowledge developed of high-risk areas in the city therefore has greater prospect for recognition and the enablement for realisation. Figure 3. Bristol resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) assessment of the objective autonomous electrical energy service, (d) assessment of the criterion water service preparedness for disaster response.

Barcelona
The RAF enables to highlight where Barcelona and its urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved, taking into account both the reference situation and the expected impacts of future climate change scenarios. The diagnosis allowed for understanding those aspects that are being tackled properly from the city and was also to determine gaps and areas of improvement thanks to the great level of detail of the different dimensions that make up the assessment. Some results are presented in Figure 4. The exhaustive analysis led the city to an intense and deep level of self-knowledge about its level of resilience in different ways of approach (Figure 4a). In this sense, the organisational and spatial dimensions yielded good results about the level of response to the metrics considered, reaching a response level of almost 100% (Figure 4b). Regarding the physical and functional dimensions, several Bristol resilience assessment results for flooding: (a) Overall assessment, (b) overall assessment per dimension, (c) assessment of the objective autonomous electrical energy service, (d) assessment of the criterion water service preparedness for disaster response.

Barcelona
Located on the northeast coast of the Iberian Peninsula facing the Mediterranean Sea, Barcelona is the capital city of the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain. The city is situated on a plain spanning and is bordered by the mountain range of Collserola, the Llobregat river in the southwest and the Besòs river in the north. Barcelona is the second most populous municipality within Spain. However, the population increased slowly but steadily until the 1970's, when the city reached its maximum population, thereafter, it stabilized and even decreased at the beginning of the 21st century, reaching the average population of 1.6 million inhabitants. Barcelona's physical expansion has been limited by the mountains and the sea, resulting in a relatively high population density, among the highest in Europe. Within this context, Barcelona's major vulnerabilities are mainly attributable to the natural and environmental threats faced by the wider Catalonia region. Barcelona's past and recent history has been punctuated with recurrent water crises but also with rainfall events with very strong intensity over short time frames. The most severe and recent disruptive event hitting the urban area was between 2004 and 2008. During that period, four years of scarce precipitation in the Llobregat and Ter rivers' headwaters, coupled with an increased evaporation rate due to high temperatures, culminated in the Spring 2008 water crisis affecting over 5.5 million people in the broader Catalonia. In that context, the Regional Government had to adopt exceptional procedures to minimise water waste, while the City of Barcelona was simultaneously forced to introduce restrictive measures over water use. Since then, several structural measures to ensure water supply have been implemented [29]. In January 2018, the city declared the pre-alert level of the Drought protocol after three consecutive years of low rainfall. The city is affected every year by an average of three intense rainfall events and one extreme flooding event every five years, although these frequencies have been increasing in the last years. Barcelona also has records of one heat wave every four years, a trend that has been increasing notably in the latest years. In 2003, a heatwave that lasted 13 days increased in more than 40% the average mortality. The last heat wave event was in summer 2018, it was 7 days long and caused up to 10 direct deaths. The resilience of the city to climate change can be highly related to its urban services' resilience, their interdependencies and cascade effects. The Barcelona Municipality has already developed an intensive work towards resilience, and it is proactively committed to increase Barcelona's resilience: from social exclusion to economic stresses, flooding, drought and heat waves. For Barcelona, the resilience assessment was carried-out for flooding, combined sewer overflows, drought and heat waves, considering the variables related to rainfall, sea level and temperature.

Lisbon
Located on the northern bank of the Tagus River's estuary, one of the 18 municipalities of the biggest Portuguese metropolitan area, Lisbon is the capital of Portugal and the second largest European port on the Atlantic Ocean. The city has a Mediterranean Climate (Csa), characterised by dry and hot summers and wet and fresh winter periods with a relatively low precipitation rate compared to other Portuguese cities. Lisbon Metropolitan Area, with a population of 2.8 million inhabitants, stretches on both sides of the Tagus River, contributing to 37% of the national economic output. Today, Lisbon is a complex system with more than 1.0 million citizens who live, work, study, circulate and visit the city, Portuguese in the majority, with different ages, cultures, religions, ethnicities, education levels, knowledge and languages. Based on the analyses conducted by both local public stakeholders and international actors working on resilience in Lisbon, one of the urban challenges is related to a combination of contextual environmental, emergency, civil protection and urban planning threats with the contingent impacts of climate change crisis [29]. Since 1950, about 43 relevant events of extreme weather occurred in Lisbon. From these, nine events were related to hot weather, including heat waves, with a maximum temperature of 42 • C recorded in August of 2003, 13 events related to cold weather, including cold waves, with a minimum temperature of −1.2 • C recorded in February 1956, two strong wind and gusts events, with a maximum wind velocity of 108.4 km/h, recorded in January 2014 and 10 rainfall-induced flood events, with a maximum return period of 500 years, recorded in November 1983. The resilience of the city to climate change can be highly related to its urban services' resilience, their interdependencies and cascade effects. Lisbon Municipality has already developed an intensive work towards resilience, and it is proactively committed to increase the resilience of the city: from social exclusion to economic stresses and from seismic shocks to flooding, combined with 17 Sustainable Development Goals' achievement. For Lisbon, the resilience assessment was undertaken for the flooding hazard, related to rainfall and sea level variables.

Bristol
The RAF was applied in Bristol in order to assess the current level of city resilience to flooding. Some results are presented in Figure 3. This could then subsequently identify where the gaps lie and what particular aspects are lacking to help formulate plans to improve or enhance upon the existing status, based on this resilience diagnosis. It went into a great level of detail investigating many aspects of city resilience quite thoroughly. The overall resilience development in the city was deemed as advanced in nearly half of the aspects assessed ( Figure 3a). In this same respect, around a quarter were shown as progressing and the remainder incipient, unanswerable or not applicable. Various city services were given consideration including storm water, wastewater, energy, mobility and solid waste management operations.
The analysis highlighted the advancement in organisational areas more so over physical areas (Figure 3b), which were deemed more absent. Infrastructure resilience to climate change is therefore the main concern on reflection of this. In their own respect, the individual services seem resilient to a point, due to a focus on building resilience to historical events in the city and in response to national flood-risk issues. There is, however, susceptibility in the realms of reliance upon inter-related services and a lack of understanding of the cascading impacts and interdependencies between them.
The results from the analysis highlight the coordination between governmental organisations that is not always experienced to the same level externally with all privately run organisations. Engagement with communities is also a dynamic that is not completely to its maximum sufficiency. Availability of service resources is good, since diverse energy sources are used in the city, but the reliance on electricity without alternative provisions is a notable limitation (Figure 3c). Resilience standards to adhere to as well as the position of a Chief Resilience Officer being eliminated make for more areas lacking in Bristol. Learning from past events is a commendable action performed well in Bristol, but the running of emergency scenarios and drills does not appear to be simulated enough to gain its full benefit ( Figure 3d). The known threats of a significant proportion from sea level rise and increased rainfall present an extreme level of vulnerability to the city and its inhabitants. There are, however, also opportunities presented, though through the declaration of a climate emergency in Bristol, they require drastic action implemented via a climate strategy. The chance for properly applying climate adaptation measures utilising the knowledge developed of high-risk areas in the city therefore has greater prospect for recognition and the enablement for realisation.

Barcelona
The RAF enables to highlight where Barcelona and its urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved, taking into account both the reference situation and the expected impacts of future climate change scenarios. The diagnosis allowed for understanding those aspects that are being tackled properly from the city and was also to determine gaps and areas of improvement thanks to the great level of detail of the different dimensions that make up the assessment. Some results are presented in Figure 4. The exhaustive analysis led the city to an intense and deep level of self-knowledge about its level of resilience in different ways of approach (Figure 4a). In this sense, the organisational and spatial dimensions yielded good results about the level of response to the metrics considered, reaching a response level of almost 100% (Figure 4b). Regarding the physical and functional dimensions, several services of the city were assessed, namely water, wastewater, storm water, energy waste management and mobility. The assessment showed those services that are well managed and monitored as waste or water services, but it also highlighted the need of improvement in the energy sector, storm and wastewater and mobility services (Figure 4c,d). For Barcelona, most data gaps can be blamed on the definition of the metrics to be applied and the differences in the way how these metrics are calculated. Most of the time, the indicators did not fit with the ones the city already determines and it would entail a noteworthy effort to address the asked specifications. Without assuming harm, this identification of gaps means an opportunity to improve a new approach to measuring the different aspects of resilience in the city. definition of the metrics to be applied and the differences in the way how these metrics are calculated. Most of the time, the indicators did not fit with the ones the city already determines and it would entail a noteworthy effort to address the asked specifications. Without assuming harm, this identification of gaps means an opportunity to improve a new approach to measuring the different aspects of resilience in the city. The RAF enabled the ability to be realistic with the resilience level of city services. It shed light on the state-of-the-art of urban resilience in Barcelona, highlighting those areas where the city works properly and progresses positively to a high degree of preparedness. At the same time, it has helped to determine those aspects where there is still room for improvement and has also given the chance of applying a methodology capable to reach the deepest areas that make up the operation of a city.

Lisbon
The RAF was applied in Lisbon in order to assess the current level of city resilience to flooding. The application of a structured resilience assessment framework enables the identification of the resilience criteria, objectives, services and city dimensions with major accomplishments, setbacks or opportunities for improvement. Therefore, it supports identification of resilience measures and development of strategies. Some results are presented in Figure 5. The overall resilience development The RAF enabled the ability to be realistic with the resilience level of city services. It shed light on the state-of-the-art of urban resilience in Barcelona, highlighting those areas where the city works properly and progresses positively to a high degree of preparedness. At the same time, it has helped to determine those aspects where there is still room for improvement and has also given the chance of applying a methodology capable to reach the deepest areas that make up the operation of a city.

Lisbon
The RAF was applied in Lisbon in order to assess the current level of city resilience to flooding. The application of a structured resilience assessment framework enables the identification of the resilience criteria, objectives, services and city dimensions with major accomplishments, setbacks or opportunities for improvement. Therefore, it supports identification of resilience measures and development of strategies. Some results are presented in Figure 5. The overall resilience development in the city is advanced in nearly one third of the aspects (Figure 5a). Globally, around a quarter shows progress, meaning that significant steps were already taken, and the city and services are still developing specific aspects. The remainder correspond to incipient, unanswerable or not applicable metrics. Various city services were assessed with more detail, including stormwater, wastewater, energy, mobility and solid waste management. the realms of reliance upon inter-related services and a lack of understanding of the cascading impacts and interdependencies between those for climate change.
This diagnosis of the main strengths and weaknesses supports the identification of the adequate measures for resilience enhancement to climate change. This assessment is a step up in Lisbon's Climate Change Resilience Process and one diagnosis to be integrated in the ongoing Climate Action Plan of the city.

Discussion
By applying the RAF (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) to Bristol, Barcelona and Lisbon (Section 2.3), from the results obtained (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3), it was possible to validate that it provides information on the assessment of the current level of the cities' resilience to climate change with a focus on the water cycle. The framework delivers a structured assessment clearly identifying the work already carried out, translating the strengths of the cities' resilience and which dimensions of resilience they fit into most. This is illustrated by the advanced or progressing values in Figures 3 a, b, 4a, b and 5a, b. Besides the assessment of the organisational and spatial dimensions of the city, one particular aspect to emphasize is the identification of the contribution of the urban services to cities' resilience, as evident in Figures 3b, 4b, c, d and 5b, c. At the same time, the framework highlights the gaps, including limitations on data related to unanswered metrics. It also indicates particular aspects that are lacking, as can be seen by incipient values in Figures 3c, d and 5d, as well as those in more need of further development, given by progressing values in the same figures.
It is evident that the RAF enables to highlight where the cities and respective urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved. It should, however, be noted that results of unanswered metrics, corresponding to limitations on data, may be due both to a lack of information or to the alignment in the way existing information is processed in the city with the way the metrics are calculated, as in the Barcelona case (Section 3.2). This last case is likely to occur in cities already using other assessment frameworks. Whenever the framework in use allows to assess the same concerns, i.e., the resilience objectives and criteria corresponding to those of the RAF, they may be used instead. Nevertheless, this provides the challenge to align the RAF with other existing frameworks in this scope. In these circumstances, it is fundamental to clearly identify actual data gaps in the cities and services that need to be filled.
Considering the assignment of a relevance degree described in Section 2.2, it is possible to undertake a stepwise process going into a gradually deeper assessment, depending on the resilience The analysis highlighted a significant advancement in spatial areas more so over physical areas, which were deemed more absent (Figure 5b). The organisational dimension as well as all the services and infrastructures present aspects already having an advanced development level, while still having significant opportunities for improvement. In the mobility service, considering the significant percentage of metrics that were not answered, data may be not be easily applicable to the metrics provided or some lack of information may exist. This is also applicable to the infrastructure assessment of the stormwater, waste and energy services (Figure 5c). Infrastructure resilience to climate change is therefore the main concern on reflection of this. For all services, the contribution of infrastructure to city resilience needs to be more exploited.
The results from the organisational analysis highlight that citizens and communities' awareness and training is one of the aspects that needs further development, followed by the city preparedness for disaster response and for recovery and build back. Engagement with communities is also a dynamic that is not completely to its maximum sufficiency as well as the coordination of financial plans and budgets for resilience.
Concerning the spatial analysis, the provision of protective infrastructures and ecosystems is well developed, while the knowledge on climate change hazard and exposure as well as impacts are highlighted as opportunities to be further developed ( Figure 5d).
Generally, there is strong development of strategic planning and there is limited preparedness in the wastewater service for climate change, as well as limited autonomy for the majority of the services, with the exception of the stormwater service. There are, however, some susceptibilities in the realms of reliance upon inter-related services and a lack of understanding of the cascading impacts and interdependencies between those for climate change.
This diagnosis of the main strengths and weaknesses supports the identification of the adequate measures for resilience enhancement to climate change. This assessment is a step up in Lisbon's Climate Change Resilience Process and one diagnosis to be integrated in the ongoing Climate Action Plan of the city.

Discussion
By applying the RAF (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) to Bristol, Barcelona and Lisbon (Section 2.3), from the results obtained (Sections 3.1-3.3), it was possible to validate that it provides information on the assessment of the current level of the cities' resilience to climate change with a focus on the water cycle. The framework delivers a structured assessment clearly identifying the work already carried out, translating the strengths of the cities' resilience and which dimensions of resilience they fit into most. This is illustrated by the advanced or progressing values in Figures 3a,b, 4a,b and 5a,b. Besides the assessment of the organisational and spatial dimensions of the city, one particular aspect to emphasize is the identification of the contribution of the urban services to cities' resilience, as evident in Figures 3b, 4b-d and 5b,c. At the same time, the framework highlights the gaps, including limitations on data related to unanswered metrics. It also indicates particular aspects that are lacking, as can be seen by incipient values in Figures 3c,d and 5d, as well as those in more need of further development, given by progressing values in the same figures.
It is evident that the RAF enables to highlight where the cities and respective urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved. It should, however, be noted that results of unanswered metrics, corresponding to limitations on data, may be due both to a lack of information or to the alignment in the way existing information is processed in the city with the way the metrics are calculated, as in the Barcelona case (Section 3.2). This last case is likely to occur in cities already using other assessment frameworks. Whenever the framework in use allows to assess the same concerns, i.e., the resilience objectives and criteria corresponding to those of the RAF, they may be used instead. Nevertheless, this provides the challenge to align the RAF with other existing frameworks in this scope. In these circumstances, it is fundamental to clearly identify actual data gaps in the cities and services that need to be filled.
Considering the assignment of a relevance degree described in Section 2.2, it is possible to undertake a stepwise process going into a gradually deeper assessment, depending on the resilience maturity of a city, allowing replicability of the methodology to other cities and services. The framework allows to go into a considerable level of detail investigating many aspects of city resilience quite thoroughly. The whole assessment provides a resilience diagnosis that helps with formulating plans to improve or enhance upon the existing status.
It is feasible to use the RAF to assess diverse hazards such as flooding, combined sewer overflows, drought and heat waves, as it was in the case of Barcelona (Section 2.3.2). The framework may be applicable to provide an overall response regarding the cities' resilience assessment or it may be applied to assess a certain urban service within its scope (Section 2.1).

Conclusions
The resilience assessment framework (RAF) herein presented enables to highlight where the cities and respective urban services stand today regarding resilience to climate change, and to identify the most critical aspects to be improved, taking into account both the reference situation and the expected impacts of future climate change scenarios. The diagnosis allows for understanding those aspects that are being tackled properly and also to determine gaps and areas of improvement thanks to the great level of detail of the different dimensions that make up the assessment. It also provides a means to assess resilience progress, therefore contributing to an integrated and forward-looking approach to resilient and sustainable urban development. Additionally, it may facilitate communication among different stakeholders and between different decision levels.
The application of this framework to Bristol, Barcelona and Lisbon cities have demonstrated that the RAF is a tool that provides support to a structured assessment of urban resilience to climate change with a focus on water. Even though it was developed within the scope of climate change and with a focus on the water cycle, replication to other hazards and services is considered on its foundation. Given its different assessment levels, it may be used by any city, service or organisation that intends to undertake a resilience assessment with this scope and focus, regardless of their resilience maturity. The RAF allows to align with the resilience path and integrate the work already in place in the cities and services, as well as to consider the information provided by diverse analysis approaches and tools, already in use or to be used by the city and service managers. Given the adopted structure, an effective and robust implementation requires the involvement of multiple parties, in a collaborative process allowing incorporation of the best available information.
The RAF is a flexible framework allowing further inclusion of additional dimensions, such as social or economic, and of other objectives, criteria and metrics, for the services already addressed. Moreover, it may be strengthened with the incorporation of other services, such as telecommunication, education or health. Other development opportunities are the consideration of other hazards, such as earthquakes, or of other risks.   Community or "grassroots" organisations, networks and training (-) Are grassroots or community organisations participating in pre-event planning and post-event response for each neighbourhood in the city? (UNISDR Scorecard P7.1) O02 Civil society links (-) Are civil society organisations engaged? (UNISDR Scorecard D4.1.4 (adapted)) O03 Engagement of vulnerable groups of the population (-) There is evidence of disaster resilience planning with or for the relevant groups of vulnerable population, and there is a confirmation from those groups of effective engagement. (UNISDR Scorecard D7.2.2 (adapted)) O04 Citizen engagement techniques (-) How effective is the city at citizen engagement and communications in relation to disaster risk reduction (DRR)? (UNISDR Scorecard P7.4)

O05
Use of mobile and e-mail "systems of engagement" to enable citizens to receive and give updates before and after a disaster (-) Use of mobile and social computing-enabled systems of engagement. All information before, during and after an event is supported by email, available on mobile devices, supported by alerts on social media, used to enable an in-bound "citizen to government" flow allowing crowd sourcing of data on events and issues. (UNISDR Scorecard D7.4.2 (adapted)) Citizens and communities' awareness and training

O06
Public education and awareness (-) Existence and reach of a co-ordinated public relations and education campaign, with structured messaging and channels to ensure hazard, risk and disaster information is disseminated to the public. (UNISDR Scorecard P6.2) O07 Training delivery (-) Existence and reach (to all sectors) of training courses covering risk and resilience issues.
Drills (-) Do practices and drills involve both the public and professionals? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.7) O09 Social networks (-) Are there regular training programmes provided to the most vulnerable and at need populations in the city? O10 Validation of effectiveness of education (-) Knowledge of "most probable" risk scenario and knowledge of key response and preparation steps is widespread throughout city. Tested by sample survey. (UNISDR Scorecard D7.4.3 (adapted)) O11 Consultative planning process (-) Existence and characteristics of formal planning consultative process? O12 Planning approval process (-) Characteristics of the planning approval process? O13 Public finances (-) Are the objectives of the city Strategy and/or Planning portfolio matched by adequate public finances? O14 Financial plan and budget for resilience, including contingency funds (-) Does the city have in place a specific 'ring fenced' (protected) budget, the necessary resources and contingency fund arrangements for local disaster risk reduction (DRR) (mitigation, prevention, response and recovery)? (UNISDR Scorecard P3.2) Table A1. Cont.

Coordination and communication with stakeholders O15
Co-ordination with other government bodies (-) Does the city have a formal mechanism (e.g., Office, Committee, National/Regional Platform) to coordinate actions between city and other international, national, regional or local governments, which ensures integrated and flexible communication and collaboration between them? O16 Multi-stakeholder collaboration (-) Does the city have a formal stakeholder engagement programme (including the most socially vulnerable and at need populations)? O17 Access and use of digital services (-) In its stakeholder engagement programme, does the city encourage access and use of digital services? O18 Collaboration mechanisms (-) In its stakeholder engagement programme, does the city have mechanisms to ensure: a) regular, proactive and inclusive multi-stakeholder collaboration (including the most socially vulnerable and at need populations) ( . . . )

O19
City Master Plan making and implementation (-) Does the city master plan (or relevant strategy/plan) include and localise and/or implement objectives of Agenda 2030? O20 City Master Plan monitoring and review (-) Is the City Master Plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and is properly operational? O21 Hazard Assessment (-) Existence of hazard assessment(s) (knowledge of key hazards that the city faces, including likelihood of occurrence)? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.1 (adapted)) O22 Damage and loss estimation (-) Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss from potential disasters, based on current development and future urban and population growth? (UNISDR Scorecard D2.2.2 (adapted)) O23 Shared understanding of infrastructure risk (-) Is there a shared understanding of risks between the city and various utility providers and other regional and national agencies that have a role in managing infrastructure such as power, water, roads and trains, of the points of stress on the system and city scale risks?
Plan for resilience (-) Does the city have a municipally approved resilience plan (strategy or action plan)? And what is its timeframe? O25 Plan for resilience and Climate Change (-) Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)? O26 Plan integration in the City Master Plan (-) Is the resilience plan integrated with the City Master Plan? O27 External support for the resilience plan (-) Is the document being developed by the city alone or with support from INGOs/UN bodies working on the subject? O28 Robustness of resilience plan (-) How robust is the resilience plan? O29 Resilience Plan monitoring and review (-) Is the resilience plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational? O30 Knowledge of resilience scenarios (-) Are there agreed scenarios for resilience (with relevant background information and supporting notes, updated at agreed intervals), setting out city-wide exposure and vulnerability from each hazard, or groups of hazards? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.3 (adapted)) Table A1. Cont.

PI Unit
Resilience-engaged city

O31
Data sharing (-) Extent to which data on the city's resilience context is shared with other organisations involved with the city's resilience. (UNISDR Scorecard P6.3) O32 Integration (-) Is resilience properly integrated with other key city functions/portfolios? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.3) O33 Organisation, coordination and participation (-) Is there a multi-agency/sectoral mechanism with appropriate authority and resources to address resilience? O34 Critical infrastructure as a priority (-) Is critical infrastructure resilience a city priority? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.1 (adapted)) O35 Critical infrastructure plan overview (-) Does the city own and implement a critical infrastructure plan or strategy? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.1 (adapted)) O36 Cascading impacts (-) Is there a collective understanding of potentially cascading failures between different city and infrastructure systems, under different scenarios, and a mapping of such cascading effects is available? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted)) O37 Learning from others (-) Is the city proactively seeking to exchange knowledge and learn from other cities facing similar challenges? (UNISDR Scorecard P6.6 (adapted)) CITY PREPAREDNESS City preparedness for disaster response

O38
Early warning (-) Existence of Early Warning System for monitoring, forecasting and doing predictions on hazards (including climate change-related events) (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted)) O39 Reach of warning (-) Percentage of population reachable by early warning systems (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1.1.1 (adapted)) O40 Communications (-) Would a significant loss of service be expected for a significant proportion of the city in the 'worst case' scenario event? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.6) O41 Event management plans (-) Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining city mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2) O42 Staffing/responder needs (-) Does the responsible disaster management authority have sufficient staffing capacity to support first responder duties in surge event scenario? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.3) O43 Equipment and relief supply needs (-) Are equipment and supply needs, as well as the availability of equipment, clearly defined?
Definition of human resources, equipment and supply needs, and availability of equipment (-) Has an estimated shortfall in human resources and equipment been identified? O45 Existence of agreements (-) If yes, have MOUs -or several ones -been signed, regarding mutual agreements with other cities or private sector resources, in order to cover the detected shortfall? O46 Health care (-) Would there be sufficient acute healthcare capabilities to deal with expected major injuries in 'worst case' scenario? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.7) O47 Food, shelter, staple goods and fuel supply (-) Would the city be able to continue to feed and shelter its population post-event? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.5) O48 Interoperability and interagency working (-) Is there an emergency operations' centre, with participation from all agencies, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with "most probable" and "most severe" scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6) Existence of civil society focal points for citizens (-) Existence of volunteers and civil society organisations acting as focal points for citizens after an event, and regularly thereafter, to confirm safety issues, needs etc. O50 Social connectedness and neighbourhood cohesion (%) What is the estimated percentage of population that would be contacted by volunteers, within the 12 hours following an event and regularly thereafter? (UNISDR Scorecard D7.2.1 (adapted)) City preparedness for climate change

O51
Management plans for climate-related events (-) Does the city have a plan addressing climate-related events, either consisting of a specific document or integrated into the city's planning portfolio? O52 Implementation of management plans for climate-related events (-) If existing, is this document being implemented through defined standard operational procedures? O53 Management plans for climate-related events monitoring and review (-) If existing, is this document being monitored and reviewed in less than a 5-year interval? O54 Knowledge of exposure and vulnerability for climate change scenarios (-) Are there agreed climate change scenarios setting out city-wide exposure and vulnerability from each hazard, or groups of hazards? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.3 (adapted)) O55 City status when addressing contribution to climate change (-) Comparing to the mean GHG emission per inhabitant that was considered to elaborate the official RCP scenarios, what are the current city's emissions? O56 City commitment with mitigation of climate change effects (%) Has the city signed any formal agreement in order to reach an established mitigation target for GHG reduction by 2050, when comparing to 1990 values? O57 Planning for mitigation of climate change effects (-) Are the mitigation targets for GHG (emission reduction by 2050) being considered in the city plans and being enforced in new projects?
City preparedness for recovery and build back

O58
Post event recovery planning-pre event (-) Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event recovery and reconstruction, including economic reboot, societal aspects etc.? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1) O59 Coordination of post event recovery (-) Is the coordinating body for all post-disaster processes identified and structured, including the distribution of roles and responsibilities between relevant organisations? (UNISDR Scorecard D9.6.3 (adapted)) O60 Lessons learnt (-) Do post-event assessment processes include failure analysis? O61 Learning loops (-) If yes, does this process allow to capture lessons learned, which then feed into design and delivery of rebuilding projects? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.2 (adapted)) O62 Insurance (-) What level of insurance cover exists in the city, across all sectors -business and community?
Damage and loss post-event assessment (-) Does the city have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment? O64 Current post-event assessment system (-) If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?

PI Unit
Availability and access to basic services

O65
Water supply (%) Percentage of households with access to safe drinking water distribution. O66 Wastewater collection (%) Percentage of households served by wastewater collection. O67 Wastewater treatment (-) Provision of adequate treatment to wastewater through wastewater treatment plant. O68 Urban waste collection (%) Percentage of population served by regular solid waste collection (having waste picked up within 200 m from households, by a legally established entity, on at least a weekly basis). O69 Urban waste treatment (-) Provision of adequate treatment to solid waste through recovery methods or disposal in landfill? O70 Urban electrical energy network (%) Percentage of households with regular connection to the electricity network. O71 Urban electrical energy alternative source (%) Estimated percentage of households connected to alternative sources of electricity. O72 Urban gas energy network (%) Percentage of households with regular access to the gas distribution network. O73 Urban mobility accessing collective transportation (%) Percentage of population living less than 500 m. from any type of public stop, including trains, subway, tram, bus transportation. O74 Urban cycling mobility (-) Is there a public plan/strategy to develop cycling paths in the city or expend the existing network? Table A2. Spatial dimension.

SPATIAL RISK MANAGEMENT
General hazard and exposure mapping

S01
Presentation process for risk information (-) Do clear hazard maps and data on risk exist? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.5 (adapted)) S02 Update process for risk information (-) If yes, are these maps regularly updated? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.5 (adapted)) S03 Knowledge of exposure and vulnerability (-) Existence of scenarios setting out city-wide exposure and vulnerability from each hazard level.
Scenarios and update process for risk information (-) Risk scenarios are updated at least every three years for the following. (UNISDR Scorecard D2.5.1 (adapted)) S05 Damage and loss estimation (-) Damage and loss aspects taken into account by risk assessments for key identified scenarios. (

PI Unit
Resilient urban development

S09
Land use zoning and planning (-) Is the land use plan -including zoning -informed by risk scenarios? S10 Land use plan monitoring and review (-) Is this plan regularly monitored and reviewed? (UNISDR Scorecard P4.1 (adapted)) S11 Land use zoning implementation (-) Extent to which land use zoning is implemented in the city and complied with. (UNISDR Scorecard D4.4.1 (adapted)) S12 New urban development (-) Is there a policy promoting physical measures in new development that enhance resilience to one or multiple hazards? (UNISDR Scorecard P4.2 (adapted)) S13 Urban design solutions that increase resilience (-) Does the city implement urban design solutions tasked to improve resilience? (UNISDR Scorecard D4.2.1 (adapted)) S14 Building codes and standards (-) Do building codes or standards exist, and do they address specific known hazards and risks for the city? Are these standards regularly updated? (UNISDR Scorecard P4.3) S15 Application of building codes (-) Implementation of building codes on relevant structures, certified as such by a 3rd party.
Impacts of climate-related event S16 Human loss in the last events (-) Human impact of the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. S17 Damages in urban footprint in the last events (%) Impact on urban footprint of the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

PROVISION OF PROTECTIVE INFRASTRUCTURES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protective infrastructures and ecosystems services S18 Existing protective infrastructure (-) Is existing protective infrastructure designed and built according to risk information? (UNISDR Scorecard P8.2 (adapted)) S19 New protective infrastructure (-) Is new protective infrastructure (in design or construction process) under development and consistent with best practice (for asset design, building and management, based on relevant risk information)? S20 Maintenance of protective infrastructure (-) Is protective infrastructure regularly maintained? S21 Awareness and understanding of ecosystem services/functions (-) Beyond just an awareness of the natural assets, does the city understand the functions that this natural capital provides for the city? (UNISDR Scorecard P5.1) S22 Awareness of the role that assets that provide ecosystem services play in the city's resilience (-) Assets that provide ecosystem services are specifically identified and managed as critical assets? S23 Trends in ecosystem services health (-) Change in health, extent or benefit of each ecosystem service in last 5 years. (UNISDR Scorecard D5.1.2) Maintenance of ecosystem services (-) Are ecosystem services specifically maintained and annually monitored on a defined set of key health/performance indicators? S25 Availability of green and blue infrastructures (m 2 /inhabitant) Estimated green and blue area per inhabitant. S26 Integration of green and blue infrastructure into city policy and projects (-) Is green and blue infrastructure being promoted on major urban development and infrastructure projects through policy?
Dependence and autonomy regarding other services considering climate change

S27
Critical services dependence of protective infrastructures and ecosystems under climate change scenarios (-) Critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependence of protective infrastructures and ecosystems under climate change scenarios. S28 Autonomy from other services under climate change scenarios (-) Protective infrastructure and ecosystems autonomy regarding critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) loss under climate change scenarios. S29 Transboundary environmental issues (-) Is the city aware of ecosystem services being provided to the city from natural capital beyond its administrative borders? Are agreements in place with neighbouring administrations to support the protection and management of these assets? (UNISDR Scorecard P5.3) Table A3. Functional dimension for the Water Service. Resilience engaged service FWts06 Resilience in water service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan (-) Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service's strategic plan) and what is its timeframe? FWts07 Service strategic plan for resilience and CC (-) Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)? FWts08 Service financial plan and budget for resilience (-) Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions including disaster risk reduction (DRR))? FWts09 Water service business continuity (-) Do business continuity plans exist? FWts10 Co-ordination with other water services in the city (-) Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other water services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level? FWts11 Learning from other water services (-) Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?

Risk management
FWts12 Risk information related to the water service (-) Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated? FWts13 Damage and loss estimation (-) Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?

FWts14
Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, in the city area according to CC scenarios (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts15
Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, in the city area according to CC scenarios (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts16
Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers according to CC scenarios (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts17
Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers according to CC scenarios (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts18
Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for other services according to CC scenarios (% customers other services) % of customers of other services expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts19
Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for other services according to CC scenarios (% customers other services) % of customers of other services expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts20
Expected water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for households according to CC scenarios (% households) % of households expected to be affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts21
Expected water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for households according to CC scenarios (% households) % of households expected to be affected by interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts22
Expected total duration of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FWts23
Expected total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, according to climate change scenarios.

PI Unit
Reliable service FWts24 Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year. FWts25 Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year.

FWts26
Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers last year (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts27 Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers last year (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts28 Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for other services last year (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts29 Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for other services last year (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts30 Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for households last year (% households) % of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, last year.
FWts31 Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for households last year (% households) % of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, last year. FWts32 Total duration of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, last year (Days) Total duration (days) of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, last year. FWts33 Total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, last year (Days) Total duration (days) of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, last year. FWts34 Water losses last year (m 3 /(km.day)) Water losses last year (water loss volume in the supply system/(total pipe length × 365)) Flexible service FWts35 Water uses (% drinking water) % of drinking water being used for irrigation, street cleaning, firefighting, or other public uses. FWts36 Water sources (-) Which types of water supply sources are being used in the city? FWts37 Water sources location (-) Where are the city's water supply sources located? FWts38 Service management (-) Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place? Water service event management plans (-) Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted)) FWts44 Water services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency (-) Is there an emergency operations' centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with "most probable" and "most severe" scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted)) FWts45 Water services early warning (-) Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted)) FWts46 Water service drills (-) Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change FWts47 Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects (% reduction GHG) Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning? FWts48 Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios (-) Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios? FWts49 Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios (-) The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People ( . . . ) FWts50 Service planning for adaptation to CC (-) Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects? FWts51 Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FWts52 Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FWts53 Equipment capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances? FWts54 Staffing capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances? Water service CC recovery planning (-) Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1) FWts56 Water service damage and loss post-event assessment (-) Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment? FWts57 Current post-event assessment system (-) If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?

FWts58
Water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts59
Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, in the city area, in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts60
Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts61
Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts62
Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for other services in the last relevant climate-related event (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts63
Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for other services in the last relevant climate-related event (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts64
Water supply interruptions, not caused by water quality problems, for households in the last relevant climate-related event (% households) % of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts65
Water supply interruptions caused by water quality problems, for households in the last relevant climate-related event (% households) % of households affected by water supply interruptions exceeding 6 h, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts66
Total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of water supply interruption, not caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWts67
Total duration of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of water supply interruption, caused by water quality problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FWts68 Water service lessons learnt and learning loops (-) Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them? FWts69 Insurance (-) What level of insurance cover exists in the service? Wastewater service strategic plan making and implementation (-) Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted)) FWwt02 Plan alignment with the City Master Plan (-) If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document? FWwt03 Service plan monitoring and review (-) If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational? FWwt04 Exchange of information to the city (-) Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents? FWwt05 Land use zoning compliance (-) Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service

FWwt06
Resilience in wastewater service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan (-) Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service's strategic plan) and what is its timeframe? FWwt07 Service strategic plan for resilience and CC (-) Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)? FWwt08 Service financial plan and budget for resilience (-) Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))? FWwt09 Wastewater service business continuity (-) Do business continuity plans exist? FWwt10 Co-ordination with other wastewater services in the city (-) Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other wastewater services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level? FWwt11 Learning from other wastewater services (-) Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?

FWwt12
Risk information related to the wastewater service (-) Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated? FWwt13 Damage and loss estimation (-) Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?

FWwt14
Expected wastewater flooding in the city area according to CC scenarios (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios.

FWwt15
Expected wastewater treatment failures in the city area according to CC scenarios (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by wastewater treatment failures, according to climate change scenarios. Expected wastewater flooding in sensitive customers according to CC scenarios (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios.

FWwt17
Expected wastewater discharges, due to failure in wastewater service to ecosystem services according to CC scenarios (-) Number of expected wastewater discharges into ecosystems services due to wastewater service interruption, according to climate change scenarios.

FWwt18
Expected wastewater flooding in other services according to CC scenarios (% customers other services) % of customers of other services expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios. FWwt19 Expected wastewater flooding in households according to CC scenarios (% households) % of households expected to be affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios. FWwt20 Expected total duration of wastewater flooding period according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected wastewater flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, according to climate change scenarios. FWwt21 Expected total duration of wastewater treatment failure period according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected wastewater treatment failures, according to climate change scenarios.

FWwt22
Wastewater flooding in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year. FWwt23 Wastewater treatment failures in the city area in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by wastewater treatment failures, last year.

FWwt24
Wastewater flooding in sensitive customers last year (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year.

FWwt25
Wastewater discharges, due to failure in wastewater service, to ecosystem services last year (-) Number of wastewater discharges into ecosystems services due to wastewater service interruption, last year.

FWwt26
Wastewater flooding in other services last year (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year. FWwt27 Wastewater effective treatment in the city area last year (%) Percentage of wastewater that was collected and safely treated, last year. FWwt28 Wastewater flooding in households last year (% households) % of households affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, last year. FWwt29 Total duration of wastewater flooding period last year (Days) Total duration (days) of wastewater flooding, last year. FWwt30 Total duration of wastewater treatment failure period last year (Days) Total duration (days) of wastewater treatment failure, last year. FWwt31 Estimated undue inflows into wastewater system last year (m 3 /(km.day)) Undue inflows (e.g., stormwater, industrial, saline, water supply inflows) into the system last year (undue wastewater inflow volume in the collection system/(total pipe length × 365)). Treated wastewater uses (% treated wastewater) Percentage of treated wastewater being recycled or reused (for e.g., irrigation, urban cleaning, firefighting). FWwt33 Wastewater disposal (-) Which solutions for wastewater disposal are used in the city? FWwt34 Wastewater disposal location (-) Where are the city's wastewater disposal points located? FWwt35 Service management (-) Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is in place?

AUTONOMOUS WASTEWATER SERVICE
Service importance to the city

FWwt36
Stakeholders perception (-) Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders' perception and is it applied? If yes quantify the service score from stakeholder perception. FWwt37 Cascading Wastewater service event management plans (-) Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted)) FWwt41 Wastewater services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency (-) Is there an emergency operations' centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with "most probable" and "most severe" scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted)) FWwt42 Wastewater services early warning (-) Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted)) FWwt43 Wastewater service drills (-) Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change

FWwt44
Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects (% reduction GHG) Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning? FWwt45 Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios (-) Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios? FWwt46 Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios (-) The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People ( . . . ) FWwt47 Service planning for adaptation to CC (-) Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects? Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FWwt49 Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FWwt50 Equipment capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances? FWwt51 Staffing capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
Service preparedness for recovery and build back FWwt52 Wastewater service CC recovery planning (-) Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1) FWwt53 Wastewater service damage and loss post-event assessment (-) Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment? FWwt54 Current post-event assessment system (-) If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?

FWwt55
Wastewater flooding in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWwt56
Wastewater treatment failures in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by wastewater treatment failures, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWwt57
Wastewater flooding in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWwt58
Wastewater discharges, due to failure in wastewater service, to ecosystem services in the last relevant climate-related event (-) Number of wastewater discharges into ecosystems services due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario

FWwt59
Wastewater flooding for other services in the last relevant event (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FWwt60 Wastewater effective treatment in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (%) Percentage of wastewater that was collected and safely treated, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FWwt61
Wastewater flooding in households in the last relevant climate-related event (% households) % of households affected by flooding due to wastewater collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FWwt62 Total duration of wastewater flooding period in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of wastewater flooding, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

PI Unit
Service preparedness for recovery and build back

FWwt63
Total duration of wastewater treatment failure period in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of wastewater treatment failure, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FWwt64 Wastewater service lessons learnt and learning loops (-) Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them? FWwt65 Insurance (-) What level of insurance cover exists in the service? Stormwater service strategic plan making and implementation (-) Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted)) FSwt02 Plan alignment with the City Master Plan (-) If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document? FSwt03 Service plan monitoring and review (-) If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational? FSwt04 Exchange of information to the city (-) Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents? FSwt05 Land use zoning compliance (-) Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service

FSwt06
Resilience in stormwater service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan (-) Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service's strategic plan) and what is its timeframe? FSwt07 Service strategic plan for resilience and CC (-) Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)? FSwt08 Service financial plan and budget for resilience (-) Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))? FSwt09 Stormwater service business continuity (-) Do business continuity plans exist? FSwt10 Co-ordination with other stormwater services in the city (-) Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other stormwater services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level? FSwt11 Learning from other stormwater services (-) Risk information related to the stormwater service (-) Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated? FSwt13 Damage and loss estimation (-) Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth? FSwt14 Expected stormwater flooding in the city area according to CC scenarios (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FSwt15
Expected stormwater flooding in sensitive customers according to CC scenarios (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FSwt16
Expected stormwater flooding in other services according to CC scenarios (% customers other services) % of customers of other services expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FSwt17
Expected stormwater flooding in households according to CC scenarios (% households) % of households expected to be affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios. FSwt18 Expected total duration of stormwater flooding period according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected stormwater flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, according to climate change scenarios.

FSwt19
Stormwater flooding in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.

FSwt20
Stormwater flooding in sensitive customers last year (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.

FSwt21
Stormwater flooding in other services last year (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year.

FSwt22
Stormwater flooding in households last year (% households) % of households affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems, last year. FSwt23 Total duration of stormwater flooding period last year (Days) Total duration (days) of stormwater flooding, due to stormwater drainage problems, last year. FSwt24 Estimated undue inflows into stormwater system last year (m 3 /(km.day)) Undue inflows (e.g., wastewater, industrial, saline, water supply inflows) into the system last year (undue wastewater inflow volume in the collection system/(total pipe length × 365)).

PI Unit
Flexible service

FSwt25
Treated stormwater uses (% treated stormwater) % of collected stormwater being recycled or reused (for e.g., irrigation, urban cleaning, firefighting). FSwt26 Stormwater disposal (-) Which solutions for stormwater disposal are used in the city? FSwt27 Stormwater disposal location (-) Where are the city's stormwater disposal points located? FSwt28 Service management (-) Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place?

AUTONOMOUS STORMWATER SERVICE
Service importance to the city

FSwt29
Stakeholders perception (-) Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders' perception and is it applied? If yes quantify the service score from stakeholder perception. Stormwater service event management plans (-) Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted)) FSwt34 Stormwater services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency (-) Is there an emergency operations' centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with "most probable" and "most severe" scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted)) FSwt35 Stormwater services early warning (-) Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted)) FSwt36 Stormwater service drills (-) Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically? Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects (% reduction GHG) Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning? FSwt38 Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios (-) Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios? FSwt39 Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios (-) The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People ( . . . ) FSwt40 Service planning for adaptation to CC (-) Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects? FSwt41 Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FSwt42 Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FSwt43 Equipment capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances? FSwt44 Staffing capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?

FSwt45
Stormwater service CC recovery planning (-) Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1) FSwt46 Stormwater service damage and loss post-event assessment (-) Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment? FSwt47 Current post-event assessment system (-) If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered? FSwt48 Stormwater flooding in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSwt49
Stormwater flooding in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSwt50
Stormwater flooding in other services in the last relevant climate-related event (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSwt51
Stormwater flooding in households in the last relevant climate-related event (% households) % of households affected by flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSwt52
Total duration of stormwater flooding in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of stormwater flooding due to stormwater drainage problems in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FSwt53 Stormwater service lessons learnt and learning loops (-) Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them? FSwt54 Insurance (-) What level of insurance cover exists in the service? Waste service strategic plan making and implementation (-) Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted)) FSlw02 Plan alignment with the City Master Plan (-) If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document? FSlw03 Service plan monitoring and review (-) If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational? FSlw04 Exchange of information to the city (-) Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents? FSlw05 Land use zoning compliance (-) Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service

FSlw06
Resilience in waste service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan (-) Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service's strategic plan) and what is its timeframe? FSlw07 Service strategic plan for resilience and CC (-) Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)? FSlw08 Service financial plan and budget for resilience (-) Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))? FSlw09 Waste service business continuity (-) Do business continuity plans exist? FSlw10 Co-ordination with other waste services in the city (-) Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other solid waste services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level? FSlw11 Learning from other waste services (-) Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?

FSlw12
Risk information related to the waste service (-) Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated? FSlw13 Damage and loss estimation (-) Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?

FSlw14
Expected solid waste collection interruption in the city area according to CC scenarios. (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruptions exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios.

FSlw15
Expected solid waste treatment failure in the city area according to CC scenarios (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by solid waste treatment problems exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios. Expected solid waste collection interruption of sensitive customers according to CC scenarios (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios.

FSlw17
Expected solid waste collection interruption for other services according to CC scenarios (% customers other services) % of customers of other services expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios. FSlw18 Expected solid waste collection interruption in households according to CC scenarios (% households) % of households expected to be affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, according to climate change scenarios. FSlw19 Expected total duration of solid waste collection interruption period according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected solid waste collection interruption, according to climate change scenario. FSlw20 Expected total duration of solid waste treatment failure period according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected solid waste treatment failure, according to climate change scenarios.

FSlw21
Solid waste collection interruption in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by solid waste collection interruptions exceeding 4 days, last year. FSlw22 Solid waste effective treatment failure in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by solid waste treatment problems exceeding 4 days, last year.

FSlw23
Solid waste collection interruption for sensitive customers last year (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, last year.

FSlw24
Solid waste collection interruption for other services, last year (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, last year.

FSlw25
Solid waste effective treatment in the city area last year (% safely treated solid waste) Percentage of solid waste that was collected and safely treated, last year. FSlw26 Solid waste collection interruption in households, last year (% households) % of households affected by solid waste collection interruption exceeding 4 days, last year. FSlw27 Total duration of solid waste collection interruption period last year (Days) Total duration (days) of solid waste collection interruption, last year. FSlw28 Total duration of solid waste treatment failure period last year (Days) Total duration (days) of solid waste treatment failure, last year. FSlw29 Estimated undue wastes into solid waste system last year (-) Types of undue wastes into the solid waste system.

FSlw30
Treated solid waste recovered (% treated solid waste being recovered) % of treated solid waste being recovered (from recycling and reuse, energy recovery, composting . . . ) FSlw31 Solid waste disposal (-) Which solutions for solid waste disposal are used in the city? FSlw32 Solid waste disposal location (-) Where are the city's solid waste disposal points located? FSlw33 Service management (-) Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place? Stakeholders perception (-) Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders' perception and is it applied? If yes quantify the service score from stakeholder perception. FSlw35 Cascading Solid waste service event management plans (-) Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard 9.2 (adapted)) FSlw39 Solid waste services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency (-) Is there an emergency operations' centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with "most probable" and "most severe" scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted)) FSlw40 Solid waste services early warning (-) Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted)) FSlw41 Solid waste service drills (-) Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change

FSlw42
Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects (% reduction GHG) Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning? FSlw43 Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios (-) Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios? FSlw44 Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios (-) The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People ( . . . ) FSlw45 Service planning for adaptation to CC (-) Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects? FSlw46 Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FSlw47 Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FSlw48 Equipment capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances? FSlw49 Staffing capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?
Service preparedness for recovery and build back

FSlw50
Solid waste service CC recovery planning (-) Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard 10.1) FSlw51 Solid waste service damage and loss post-event assessment (-) Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment?

PI Unit
Service preparedness for recovery and build back

FSlw52
Current post-event assessment system (-) If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?

FSlw53
Solid waste collection interruption in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) % of city area with solid waste collection interruption in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSlw54
Solid waste effective treatment failure in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by solid waste treatment problems, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSlw55
Solid waste collection interruption in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by solid waste collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSlw56
Solid waste collection interruption for other services in the last relevant climate-related event (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by solid waste collection interruption in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSlw57
Solid waste effective treatment in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% solid waste safely treated) Percentage of solid waste that was collected and safely treated in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FSlw58
Solid waste collection interruption in households in the last relevant climate-related event (% households) % of households affected by solid waste collection interruption in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FSlw59 Total duration of solid waste collection interruption in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of solid waste collection interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FSlw60 Total duration of solid waste treatment failure in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of solid waste treatment failure, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FSlw61 Solid waste service lessons learnt and learning loops (-) Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them? FSlw62 Insurance (-) What level of insurance cover exists in the service? Energy service strategic plan making and implementation (-) Does the service have a strategic plan and is it implemented? (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted)) FEne02 Plan alignment with the City Master Plan (-) If yes, is the plan aligned with the city main planning document? FEne03 Service plan monitoring and review (-) If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational? FEne04 Exchange of information to the city (-) Is there regular exchange of data and information between service and the city concerning the review of planning documents? FEne05 Land use zoning compliance (-) Do the service-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged service

FEne06
Resilience in energy service strategy and alignment with City Master Plan (-) Does the service have a resilience plan (either as an autonomous action plan or as a strategy included in the service's strategic plan) and what is its timeframe? FEne07 Service strategic plan for resilience and CC (-) Does the resilience plan consider climate change (projection, scenarios, impacts, etc.)? FEne08 Service financial plan and budget for resilience (-) Do the service financial plans have dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))? FEne09 Energy service business continuity (-) Do business continuity plans exist? FEne10 Co-ordination with other energy services in the city (-) Is there any coordination mechanism in place with other energy services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level? FEne11 Learning from other energy services (-) Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?

FEne12
Risk information related to the energy service (-) Do specific service plans include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, damage and loss quantification, etc.) related to the service and are regularly updated? FEne13 Damage and loss estimation (-) Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth?

FEne14
Expected energy outage in the city area according to CC scenarios (% city area) Percentage of the city area expected to be affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h, according to climate change scenarios.

FEne15
Expected energy outage for sensitive customers according to CC scenarios (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers expected to be affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h, according to climate change scenarios. Expected total duration of energy outage period according to CC scenarios (Days) Total duration (days) of expected energy outage, according to climate change scenarios.

FEne19
Energy outage in the city area last year (% city area) Percentage of the city area affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year.

FEne20
Energy outage for sensitive customers last year (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year.

FEne21
Energy outage for other services last year (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year.

FEne22
Energy outage in households last year (% households) % of households affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h last year. FEne23 Total duration of energy outage period last year (Days) Total duration of energy outage periods last year (days). FEne24 Energy losses last year (-) Energy losses last year (rate of electricity losses in distribution networks measured as the ratio between losses and supplies of electricity).

FEne25
Alternative energy sources (% energy from renewable sources) % of energy coming from renewable sources. FEne26 Energy sources (-) Which energy sources are used in the city? FEne27 Energy sources location (-) Where are the city's energy source points located? FEne28 Service management (-) Services are appropriately managed, i.e., technological tools are used, existing competences are adequate, and a command chain is at place? Stakeholders perception (-) Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders' perception and is it applied? If yes, quantify the service score from stakeholder perception. Energy service event management plans (-) Is there a disaster management/preparedness/emergency response plan outlining service mitigation, preparedness and response to local emergencies? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.2 (adapted)) FEne34 Energy services interdepartmental collaboration for emergency (-) Is there an emergency operations' centre, automating standard operating procedures specifically designed to deal with "most probable" and "most severe" scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.6 (adapted)) FEne35 Energy services early warning (-) Does the service have a plan or standard operating procedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Is the city warned by this system? (UNISDR Scorecard P9.1 (adapted)) FEne36 Energy service drills (-) Are practices and drills carried out internally and periodically?
Service preparedness for climate change

FEne37
Service commitment with mitigation of CC effects (% reduction GHG) Is the service committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning? FEne38 Existence of agreed CC scenarios and alignment with the city CC scenarios (-) Are there agreed climate change scenarios, setting out service exposure and vulnerability, from each hazard level? Are they aligned with the city-wide climate change scenarios? FEne39 Knowledge of exposure and service vulnerability for CC scenarios (-) The analysis of exposure and service vulnerability for climate change scenarios addresses: a) People ( . . . ) Table A7. Cont.

PI Unit
Service preparedness for climate change

FEne40
Service planning for adaptation to CC (-) Is adaptation to climate change being considered in the service plans and enforced in new projects? FEne41 Implemented measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures has the service implemented to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FEne42 Planned measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures is the service planning to implement to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? FEne43 Equipment capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate equipment capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances? FEne44 Staffing capacity of the service (-) Has the service adequate staffing capacity, in normal and emergency circumstances?

FEne45
Energy service CC recovery planning (-) Is there a strategy or process in place for post-event service recovery and reconstruction? (UNISDR Scorecard P10.1) FEne46 Energy service damage and loss post-event assessment (-) Does the service have a system in place to provide Post-Disaster Needs Assessment? FEne47 Current post-event assessment system (-) If yes, has such system been defined, implemented, tested and historic data is registered?

FEne48
Energy outage in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of city area affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FEne49
Energy outage in sensitive customers in the last relevant climate-related event (% sensitive customers) % of sensitive customers affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FEne50
Energy outage in other services in the last relevant climate-related event (% customers other services) % of customers of other services affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

FEne51
Energy outage in households in the last relevant climate-related event (% households) % of households affected by energy outage exceeding 6 h in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FEne52 Total duration of energy outage in the last relevant climate-related event (Days) Days of energy outage in the last relevant climate-related event. FEne53 Energy service lessons learnt and learning loops (-) Are service-specific processes in place for lessons learnt, including failure analysis? If yes, are service-specific plans informed by them? FEne54 Insurance (-) What level of insurance cover exists in the service? Mobility service strategic plan making and implementation (-) Existence and implementation of a strategic plan for the mobility in the city. (UNISDR Scorecard P1.1 (adapted)) FMob02 Characterization of mobility needs (-) The plan includes the characterization of the following population mobility habits: a) Type of mobility solutions used ( . . . ) FMob03 Mobility plan monitoring and review (-) If existing, is the plan periodically monitored and reviewed, ensuring it remains relevant and operational? FMob04 Routes hierarchy characterization (-) The city established a hierarchy of its routes. FMob05 Land use zoning compliance (-) Do mobility-specific plans comply with up-to-date land use and zoning regulations?
Resilience engaged mobility

FMob06
Resilience in Mobility service strategy (-) Resilience's aspects are included in the mobility plan? FMob07 Mobility plan for Climate Change (-) The plan considers climate change (hazards, projections, scenarios, impacts, etc.)? FMob08 Budget for resilience (-) The mobility plan has dedicated allocations for resilience-building actions (including disaster risk reduction (DRR))? FMob09 Co-ordination with other Mobility services in the city (-) Is there any coordination mechanism in place between mobility services/entities either at municipal or metropolitan level? FMob10 Learning from other Mobility services (-) Is there any knowledge exchange with other services?

FMob11
Risk information related to the Mobility service (-) Does the mobility plan include risk information (such as exposure and vulnerability, identification of higher flow routes, damage and loss quantification, etc.) and is it regularly updated? FMob12 Damage and loss estimation (-) Does risk assessment include estimations of damage and loss for agreed climate change scenarios, based on current development and future urban and population growth? FMob13 Expected mobility interruption in the city area according to CC scenarios (-) No city area at risk of mobility interruptions exceeding 2 h, due to the most probable scenario, for these services: FMob14 Expected mobility interruption in the higher flow routes according to CC scenarios (-) Expected mobility interruption exceeding 2 hours in the higher flow routes according to climate change scenarios. FMob15 Expected mobility interruption for population according to CC scenarios (-) No population living in the area expected to be affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, due to the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob16 Expected mobility interruption for long-distance passengers according to CC scenarios (-) No long-distance passengers expected to be affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, due to the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob17 Expected mobility interruption period according to CC scenarios (-) Less than 2 h of expected mobility interruption, due to the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) Table A8. Cont.

PI Unit
Reliable mobility

FMob18
Public transport spatial coverage (% city area) Public transport is available and covers: a) More than or equal to 80% of the city area ( . . . ) FMob19 Public transport daily coverage (Hours/day) Public transport is available. FMob20 Mobility interruption in the higher flow routes last year (-) Mobility interruption exceeding 2 hours in the higher flow routes last year. FMob21 Mobility interruption in the city area last year (-) Less than 2.5% of the city area with mobility interruptions exceeding 2 h, last year, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob22 Mobility interruption for population last year (-) Less than 2.5% of the population living in the area affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, last year, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob23 Mobility interruption for long-distance passengers last year (-) Less than 2.5% of the long-distance passengers affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, last year, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob24 Total duration of mobility interruption period last year (-) Less than 0.5 days of mobility interruption, last year, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob25 Routes with restrictions to circulation of heavy vehicles (-) The city has identified the routes with restriction to the circulation of heavy vehicles. FMob26 Routes with restrictions to circulation of medical or emergency vehicles (-) The city has identified the routes with restriction to the circulation of medical or emergency vehicles.

FMob27
Alternative mobility (% everyday cycling mobility) % of everyday cycling mobility. FMob28 City mobility solutions (-) Which solutions for mobility are available in the city? FMob29 Modal split for city road-based solutions (% share) % share of each road-based solution. FMob30 Long distance mobility solutions (-) Which solutions for long distance mobility are available in the city? FMob31 Mobility passenger transference (-) Where are the city's mobility central node points located? FMob32 Use of mobility management tools (-) Mobility in the city recurs to the following management tools: a) Traffic lighting is managed in an integrated and automatic way ( . . . )

AUTONOMOUS MOBILITY
Service importance to the city

FMob33
Stakeholders perception of city mobility (-) Is there a mechanism to provide service score, based on stakeholders' perception and is it applied? If yes, quantify the service score from stakeholder perception. FMob34 Cascading impacts (-) Is there an understanding of potentially cascading failures between different mobility services, under different scenarios? (UNISDR Scorecard P2.4 (adapted)) Service inter-dependency with other services considering climate change

FMob35
Critical services dependence on mobility according to CC scenarios (-) To what extent are critical services (CS -RESCCUE services) dependent on the mobility, based on climate change scenarios? FMob36 Mobility autonomy from other critical services according to CC scenarios (-) To what extent is the mobility dependent on other critical services (CS -RESCCUE services), based on climate change scenarios? Mobility commitment with mitigation of CC effects (% reduction GHG) Is city mobility committed with an established mitigation target regarding reduction of GHG within its strategic planning? FMob38 Mobility interruption in the city area in the last relevant climate-related event (% city area) Percentage of city area affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FMob39 Mobility interruption in the higher flow routes in the last relevant climate-related event (-) Mobility interruption exceeded 2 h in higher flow routes in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. FMob40 Mobility interruption for population in the last relevant climate-related event (-) Less than 2.5% of population living in the area affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob41 Mobility interruption for long-distance passengers in the last relevant climate-related event (-) Less than 2.5% of long-distance passengers affected by mobility interruption exceeding 2 h, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) FMob42 Mobility interruption period in the last relevant climate-related event (-) Less than 2 h that mobility services suffered from interruption, in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these services: a) Road based ( . . . ) Table A9. Physical dimension for the water infrastructure.

PWts01
Water infrastructure critical assets (-) Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified? PWts02 Component importance (-) The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: PWts03 Water infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update (-) Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk? PWts04 Exchange of information (-) Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city? PWts05 Protective buffers mapping and information to the city (-) Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?

PWts06
Codes and standards for infrastructure (-) Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented? PWts07 Maintenance of infrastructure (-) Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered? PWts08 Water pump failures last year (Days) Average number of days that system pumps were out of order last year. PWts09 Water mains bursts last year (No./100 km) Relative number of water mains bursts last year (No./system length (km) × 100 km).

PWts10
Water  Power failures last year (Days) Average number of days pumping stations were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year. PWts13 Water quality last year (%) Percentage of performed laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year. PWts14 Level of failure of critical infrastructure asset last year (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year. PWts15 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year (-) Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year. PWts16 Time for restoration last year (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year (days). PWts17 Real water losses (m 3 /(km.day)) Volume of real physical water losses, through any leaks, damaged pipes or overflows (m 3 /(km.day)).

PWts18
Energy efficiency in pumping stations (kWh/m 3 .100m) Average normalized energy consumption in PS -pumping stations = (Total energy consumption for pumping/sum (Water volume in PS i × Manometric pressure head i/100).

PWts19
Pollution prevention (% appropriate sludge disposal) Percentage of sludge from water treatment with appropriate final disposal.

AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services PWts20 Cascading impacts (-) There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: PWts21 Infrastructure of other services dependency on water infrastructure (-) The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on water infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service ( . . . ) PWts22 Dependency on infrastructures of other services (-) The infrastructure of the water service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service ( . . . )

PWts23
Level of dependency (% customers affected) Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.

PWts24
Autonomy from infrastructures of other services (% infrastructure) Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the water service.

PWts25
Level of autonomy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected). PWts26 Autonomy activation (-) How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible. PWts27 Autonomy period (Days) Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)). PWts28 Water storage autonomy (Days) Days of water supply autonomy provided by supply and distribution storage tanks = water inflow (m 3 /year)/(water storage volume (m 3 ) × 365 ) PWts29 Energy self-production (%) Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.

Infrastructure assets redundancy
PWts30 Redundancy (-) Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk? PWts31 Redundancy activation (-) How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.

PWts32
Level of redundancy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service. Use of design solutions to improve city resilience (-) The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement ( . . . ) PWts34 Greenhouse gas emission target (-) Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction. PWts35 Other contributions to city resilience (-) The water infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter ( . . . ) Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change

PWts36
Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario (-) Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios. PWts37 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario (%) Ratio between predicted expenditure on infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year. PWts38 Time for restoration for most probable scenario (Days) Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.

PWts39
Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? PWts40 Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back

PWts41
Water pump failures in the last relevant event (Days) Number of days system pumps were out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

PWts42
Water service mains failures in the last relevant event (No./100 km) Number of mains failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./system length (km) × 100 km).

PWts43
Water service connection mains bursts in the last relevant event (No./1000 connections) Number of water service connections mains bursts due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).

PWts44
Hydrant bursts in the last relevant event (No./1000 hydrants) Number of hydrant bursts due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./hydrants in the system × 1000 hydrants). PWts45 Power failures in the last relevant event (Days) Number of days pumping stations were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PWts46 Water quality compliance in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PWts47 Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PWts48 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event (%) Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year. PWts49 Time for restoration in the last relevant event (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. Wastewater infrastructure critical assets (-) Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified? PWwt02 Component importance (-) The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: a) Population served ( . . . ) PWwt03 Wastewater infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update (-) Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk? PWwt04 Exchange of information (-) Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city? PWwt05 Protective buffers mapping and information to the city (-) Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?
Infrastructure assets robustness

PWwt06
Codes and standards for infrastructure (-) Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented? PWwt07 Maintenance of infrastructure (-) Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered? PWwt08 Wastewater pump failures last year (Days) Average number of days that system pumps were out of order last year. PWwt09 Wastewater sewer pipe collapses last year (No./100 km) Relative number of collapses in wastewater sewers last year (No./system length (km) × 100 km).

PWwt10
Wastewater connection collapses last year (No./1000 connections) Number of collapses in wastewater connections last year (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections). PWwt11 Power failures last year (Days) Average number of days pumping stations were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year.

PWwt12
Combined sewer overflow failures last year (CSO discharges/total CSO devices) Average number of combined sewer overflows last year. PWwt13 Wastewater quality last year (%) Percentage of performed laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year. PWwt14 Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year. PWwt15 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year (-) Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year. Real undue inflows into the wastewater infrastructure (m 3 /(km.day)) Volume of real physical undue inflows into the wastewater infrastructure, through joints, damaged pipes or wrong connections (m 3 /(km.day)).

PWwt18
Energy efficiency in pumping stations (kWh/m 3 .100m) Average normalised energy consumption in PS -pumping stations = (Total energy consumption for pumping/sum (wastewater volume in PS i × Manometric pressure head i/100).

PWwt19
Pollution prevention (% appropriate sludge disposal) Percentage of sludge from wastewater treatment with appropriate final disposal.

AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services PWwt20 Cascading impacts (-) There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the wastewater service ( . . . ) PWwt21 Infrastructure of other services' dependency on wastewater infrastructure (-) The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on wastewater infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service ( . . . ) PWwt22 Dependency on infrastructures of other services (-) The infrastructure of the wastewater service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service ( . . . )

PWwt23
Level of dependency (% customers affected) Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.

PWwt24
Autonomy from infrastructures of other services (% infrastructure) Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the wastewater service.

PWwt25
Level of autonomy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected). PWwt26 Autonomy activation (-) How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible. PWwt27 Autonomy period (Days) Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)). PWwt28 Energy self-production (%) Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production. Redundancy (-) Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk? PWwt30 Redundancy activation (-) How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.

PWwt31
Level of redundancy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service.

WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience

PWwt32
Use of design solutions to improve city resilience (-) The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement ( . . . ) PWwt33 Greenhouse gas emission target (-) Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction. PWwt34 Other contributions to city resilience (-) The wastewater infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter ( . . . ) Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change

PWwt35
Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario (-) Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios. PWwt36 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario (%) Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year. PWwt37 Time for restoration for most probable scenario (Days) Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.

PWwt38
Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? PWwt39 Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back

PWwt40
Wastewater pump failures in the last relevant event (Days) Number of days system pumps were out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PWwt41 Wastewater sewer pipe failures in the last relevant event (No./100km) Number of failures in wastewater sewers due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./system length (km) × 100 km). PWwt42 Wastewater connection failures in the last relevant event (No./100km) Number of failures in wastewater connections due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections).

PWwt43
Combined sewer overflow failures in the last relevant event (CSO discharges/total CSO devices) Number of combined sewer overflow failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. Power failures in the last relevant event (Days) Number of days pumping stations were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PWwt45 Wastewater quality compliance in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PWwt46 Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PWwt47 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event (%) Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year. PWwt48 Time for restoration in the last relevant event (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. Stormwater infrastructure critical assets (-) Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified? PSwt02 Component importance (-) The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: a) Population served ( . . . ) PSwt03 Stormwater infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update (-) Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk? PSwt04 Exchange of information (-) Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city? PSwt05 Protective buffers mapping and information to the city (-) Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?

PSwt06
Codes and standards for infrastructure (-) Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented? PSwt07 Maintenance of infrastructure (-) Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered? PSwt08 Stormwater pump failures last year (Days) Average number of days that system pumps were out of order last year.

PSwt10
Stormwater connection collapses last year (No./1000 connections) Number of collapses in stormwater connections last year (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections). Power failures last year (Days) Average number of days pumping stations were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year. PSwt13 Stormwater quality last year (%) Percentage of performed laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year. PSwt14 Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year. PSwt15 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year (-) Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year. PSwt16 Time for restoration last year (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year.

PSwt18
Energy efficiency in pumping stations (-) Average normalized energy consumption in PS -pumping stations = (Total energy consumption for pumping/sum (stormwater volume in PS i × Manometric pressure head i/100).

PSwt19
Pollution prevention (% appropriate sludge disposal) Percentage of sludge from stormwater treatment with appropriate final disposal.

AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services PSwt20 Cascading impacts (-) There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the stormwater service ( . . . ) PSwt21 Infrastructure of other services' dependency on stormwater infrastructure (-) The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on stormwater infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service ( . . . ) PSwt22 Dependency on infrastructures of other services (-) The infrastructure of the stormwater service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service ( . . . )

PSwt23
Level of dependency (% customers affected) Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services.

PSwt24
Autonomy from infrastructures of other services (% infrastructure) Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the stormwater service.

PSwt25
Level of autonomy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected). Autonomy activation (-) How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible. PSwt27 Autonomy period (Days) Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)). PSwt28 Capacity for zero floods (Years) Based on the historical data, estimative of the maximum return period without city-wide flood ensured by the existing stormwater infrastructure. PSwt29 Energy self-production (%) Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.

Infrastructure assets redundancy
PSwt30 Redundancy (-) Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk? PSwt31 Redundancy activation (-) How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.

STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience PSwt32 Use of design solutions to improve city resilience (-) The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement ( . . . ) PSwt33 Greenhouse gas emission target (-) Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction. PSwt34 Other contributions to city resilience (-) The stormwater infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter ( . . . ) Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change

PSwt35
Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario (-) Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios. PSwt36 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario (%) Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year. PSwt37 Time for restoration for most probable scenario (Days) Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios.

PSwt38
Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? PSwt39 Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back

PSwt40
Stormwater pump failures in the last relevant event (Days) Number of days system pumps were out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

PSwt41
Stormwater sewer pipe failures in the last relevant event (No./100 km ) Number of failures in stormwater sewers due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./system length (km) × 100 km).

PSwt42
Stormwater connection failures in the last relevant event (No./1000 connections ) Number of failures in stormwater connections due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./connections in the system × 1000 connections). Inlets failures in the last relevant event (No./1000 inlets ) Number of inlets failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario (No./inlets in the system × 1000 inlets). PSwt44 Power failures in the last relevant event (Days) Number of days pumping stations were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PSwt45 Stormwater quality compliance in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of laboratory analysis that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PSwt46 Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PSwt47 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event (%) Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year. PSwt48 Time for restoration in the last relevant event (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. Solid waste infrastructure critical assets (-) Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified? PSlw02 Component importance (-) The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: a) Population served ( . . . ) PSlw03 Solid waste infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update (-) Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk? PSlw04 Exchange of information (-) Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city? PSlw05 Protective buffers mapping and information to the city (-) Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed? Codes and standards for infrastructure (-) Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented? PSlw07 Maintenance of infrastructure (-) Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered? PSlw08 Waste collection infrastructure components failures last year (Days) Average number of days with collection infrastructure components out of service last year. PSlw09 Waste management service facilities unavailable last year (% facilities) Relative number of waste management facilities unavailable for longer than 4 days, last year (facilities unavailable /total number of facilities). PSlw10 Waste management fleet failures last year (-) Average number of days that at least 10% of the waste management fleet was out of service last year. PSlw11 Waste containers dumped or displaced last year (% containers) Relative number of waste containers dumped or displaced last year (number affected/total number of containers). PSlw12 Power failures interrupting service last year (Days) Average number of days waste management were out of service due to power supply interruptions last year. PSlw13 Laboratory analysis compliance (%) Percentage of laboratory analysis performed in disposal site that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements last year. PSlw14 Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order last year. PSlw15 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year (-) Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year. PSlw16 Time for restoration last year (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year.

PSlw17
Pollution prevention (% appropriate leachate disposal) Percentage of leachate from solid waste treatment with appropriate final disposal.

AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services

PSlw18
Cascading impacts (-) There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the solid waste service ( . . . ) PSlw19 Infrastructure of other services' dependency on solid waste infrastructure (-) The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on waste infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service ( . . . ) PSlw20 Dependency on infrastructures of other services (-) The infrastructure of the waste service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service ( . . . )

PSlw21
Level of dependency (% customers affected) Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services. Autonomy from infrastructures of other services (% infrastructure) Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the solid waste service.

PSlw23
Level of autonomy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected). PSlw24 Autonomy activation (-) How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible. PSlw25 Autonomy period (Days) Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)). PSlw26 Waste storage autonomy (Days) Days of waste storage autonomy provided by containers and transfer locations. PSlw27 Energy self-production (%) Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production.

Infrastructure assets redundancy
PSlw28 Redundancy (-) Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk? PSlw29 Redundancy activation (-) How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.

PSlw30
Level of redundancy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service.

WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience

PSlw31
Use of design solutions to improve city resilience (-) The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement ( . . . )

PSlw32
Recovered material from waste treatment (% recovered material) % of recovered material from treatment per year (including composting, recycling and direct recovery). PSlw33 Greenhouse gas emission target (-) Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction. PSlw34 Other contributions to city resilience (-) The solid waste infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter ( . . . ) Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change

PSlw35
Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario (-) Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios. PSlw36 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario (%) Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year. PSlw37 Time for restoration for most probable scenario (Days) Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios. Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? PSlw39 Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back PSlw40 Waste collection infrastructure components failures last relevant event (Days) Number of days waste collection infrastructure components were out of service due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

PSlw41
Waste management service facilities unavailable in the last relevant event (% facilities) Number of waste management service facilities unavailable in the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PSlw42 Waste management fleet failures in the last relevant event (-) Number of waste management fleet failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

PSlw43
Waste containers dumped or displaced in the last relevant event (% containers) Number of waste containers dumped or displaced due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PSlw44 Power failures in the last relevant event (Days) Number of days waste management facilities were out of service by power supply interruptions due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PSlw45 Laboratory analysis compliance in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of laboratory analysis performed in disposal site that were in accordance to legal or regulatory requirements in the last relevant event. PSlw46 Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PSlw47 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event (%) Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year. PSlw48 Time for restoration in the last relevant event (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. Energy infrastructure critical assets (-) Are the critical infrastructure assets for service provision identified? PEne02 Component importance (-) The identification of infrastructure critical assets is based in the following: PEne03 Energy infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update (-) Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk? PEne04 Exchange of information (-) Is there a regular exchange of information regarding infrastructure critical assets, hazard maps and data on risk with the city? PEne05 Protective buffers mapping and information to the city (-) Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined, are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk and is the city informed?
Infrastructure assets robustness

PEne06
Codes and standards for infrastructure (-) Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented? PEne07 Maintenance of infrastructure (-) Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered? PEne08 Power station failure last year (Days) Average number of days that power stations were out of service due to infrastructure problems last year. PEne09 Power substation failure last year (Days) Average number of days that power substations were out of service due to infrastructure problems last year. PEne10 Power Level of failure of critical infrastructure assets last year (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure assets out of order by failure last year. PEne13 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year (-) Ratio between expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure and annual operating budget of last year. PEne14 Time for restoration last year (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, last year. PEne15 Use of cooling waters (l/kWh) Water use per year for cooling power stations.

AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services

PEne16
Cascading impacts (-) There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the infrastructure and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Other infrastructure of the energy service ( . . . ) PEne17 Infrastructure of other services' dependency on energy infrastructure (-) The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on energy infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service ( . . . ) PEne18 Dependency on infrastructures of other services (-) The infrastructure of the energy service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the wastewater service ( . . . )

PEne19
Level of dependency (% customers affected) Percentage of customers affected by infrastructure dependent on other services. Autonomy from infrastructures of other services (% infrastructure) Percentage of infrastructure directly dependent on other services that have an autonomy solution managed by the energy service.

PEne21
Level of autonomy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by infrastructure dependent on other services that benefit from autonomy solutions (i.e., customers that benefit/customers affected). PEne22 Autonomy activation (-) How is infrastructure autonomy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible. PEne23 Autonomy period (Days) Weighted average of autonomy period (Ti) of each dependent infrastructure (i) (i.e., Sum (Ti × level of autonomy i)).

PEne24
Redundancy (-) Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk? PEne25 Redundancy activation (-) How is infrastructure redundancy activated? Specify the time required to activate it, if possible.

PEne26
Level of redundancy (% customers covered) Percentage of customers covered by redundant infrastructure, i.e., with alternative infrastructure able to provide the service.

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience

PEne27
Use of design solutions to improve city resilience (-) The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of the following solutions to improve city resilience: a) Soakaways and porous pavement ( . . . ) PEne28 Greenhouse gas emission target (-) Contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction. PEne29 Other contributions to city resilience (-) The energy infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter ( . . . ) Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change

PEne30
Level of exposure of critical infrastructure assets to the most probable scenario (-) Identify the critical infrastructure asset for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios. PEne31 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario (%) Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year. PEne32 Time for restoration for most probable scenario (Days) Maximum out-of-service period predicted for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios. Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? PEne34 Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back

PEne35
Power stations failure in the last relevant event (Days) Average number of days that power stations were out of service due to infrastructure problems due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PEne36 Power substation failure in the last relevant event (Days) Average number of days that power substations were out of service due to infrastructure problems due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PEne37 Power distribution network failures in the last relevant event (-) Number of failures in the distribution network due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PEne38 Local power installation failures in the last relevant event (-) Number of sectional and transformation power stations and public lighting installation failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PEne39 Level of failure of critical assets in the last relevant event (%) Percentage of critical infrastructure asset out of order by failure due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PEne40 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event (-) Ratio between expenditure on infrastructure affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario and annual operating budget of last year. PEne41 Time for restoration in the last relevant event (Days) Maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. Mobility infrastructure critical assets (-) Are the critical infrastructure assets for mobility identified? PMob02 Component importance for city mobility (-) The identification of infrastructure critical assets for city mobility is based in the following: a) Population served ( . . . ) PMob03 Mobility infrastructure critical assets mapping, review and update (-) Are the infrastructure critical assets identified on hazard maps and included in data on risk? PMob04 Protective buffers mapping and information to the city (-) Have protective buffers to safeguard infrastructure assets been defined and are they clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk? Table A14. Cont.

PI Unit
Infrastructure assets robustness

PMob05
Codes and standards for infrastructure (-) Do codes or standards for infrastructure design and construction exist and are these implemented? PMob06 Maintenance of infrastructure (-) Is infrastructure maintained on a regular basis (according to a preventive maintenance plan), resources for corrective maintenance are assured and all maintenance information is continuously registered? PMob07 Road and rail routes failures last year (-) Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average last year, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . ) PMob08 Transport interfaces failures last year (Hours) Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to infrastructural failures last year. PMob09 Power-related failures in road and rail routes last year (-) Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average, due to power-related failures, last year. PMob10 Power-related failures in transport interfaces last year (Hours) Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to power-related failures, last year. PMob11 Flooding-related failures in road and rail routes last year (-) Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average, due to flooding, last year. PMob12 Flooding-related failures in transport interfaces last year (Hours) Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to flooding-related failures on average, last year. PMob13 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure last year (-) Ratio of expenditure with rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure (routes and interfaces) and annual operating budget of last year between 0.9 and 1.0 or between 1.1 and 1.2, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . ) PMob14 Time for restoration last year (-) Mobility critical infrastructure (routes and interfaces) with a maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, less than or equal to 7 h last year, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . ) PMob15 Clean fuel public transport (-) Existence of alternative clean fuel public transport in the city.

AUTONOMOUS AND FLEXIBLE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure assets importance to and dependency on other services

PMob16
Cascading impacts (-) There is knowledge concerning potentially cascading failures between the components of the mobility infrastructure (road, train, air and water-based transport that applies) and the following infrastructure, under the agreed scenarios: a) Full knowledge between the components of the mobility infrastructure ( . . . ) PMob17 Infrastructure of other services' dependency on mobility infrastructure (-) The infrastructure of the following services is dependent on mobility infrastructure: a) Infrastructure of the water service ( . . . ) PMob18 Dependency on infrastructures of other services (-) The infrastructure of the mobility service directly depends on the infrastructure of the following services: a) Infrastructure of the water service.

PI Unit
Infrastructure assets autonomy and redundancy

PMob19
Energy self-production (%) Percentage of energy consumption coming from self-production. PMob20 Redundancy (-) Is there an understanding of infrastructure redundancy, clearly identified on hazard maps and data on risk?

MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE PREPAREDNESS
Contribution to city resilience

PMob21
Use of design solutions to improve city resilience (-) The design of the infrastructure incorporates the use of solutions to improve city resilience: a) Renewable energy generation ( . . . ) PMob22 Greenhouse gas emission target (-) There is a prediction of GHG emissions reduction, aiming at the targets defined at the strategic planning level, from the following components of assets: a) Infrastructure operation ( . . . ) PMob23 Other contributions to city resilience (-) The mobility infrastructure and related services provide other contributions to city resilience in emergency situation, such as: a) Shelter ( . . . ) Infrastructure assets exposure to climate change

PMob24
Level of exposure of mobility infrastructure to the most probable scenario (-) Identify the critical assets for which less than 10% is exposed to different hazards for climate change scenarios. PMob25 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure for most probable scenario (-) Ratio between predicted expenditure with infrastructure (routes and interfaces) affected by climate change scenarios and annual operating budget of last year between 0.9 and 1.0 or 1.1 and 1.2, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . ) PMob26 Time for restoration for most probable scenario (-) Transport networks with maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure (routes and interfaces), including recovery time, for less than 7 h, due to different hazards for climate change scenarios, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . )

PMob27
Implemented infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures were implemented in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation? PMob28 Planned infrastructural measures to address CC mitigation and adaptation (-) What type of measures are being planned in infrastructure design to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Preparedness for recovery and build back

PMob29
Road and rail routes failures in the last relevant event (-) Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . ) PMob30 Transport interfaces failures in the last relevant event (Hours) Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to infrastructural failures due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PMob31 Power-related failures in road and rail routes in the last relevant event (-) Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h on average, by power-related failures, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PMob32 Power-related failures in transport interfaces in the last relevant event (-) Critical routes were out of order for less than 2 h due to flooding on average, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PMob33 Flooding-related failures in road and rail routes in the last relevant event (Hours) Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to flooding-related failures on average, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario.

PI Unit
Preparedness for recovery and build back PMob34 Flooding-related failures in transport interfaces in the last relevant event (Hours) Average number of hours that critical transport interfaces were out of order due to power-related failures, due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario. PMob35 Coverage of expenditure in infrastructure in the last relevant event (-) Ratio of expenditure on rehabilitation, operation and management of infrastructure (routes and interfaces) affected by the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, and annual operating budget of last year, is between 0.9 and 1.0 or 1.1 and 1.2, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . ) PMob36 Time for restoration in the last relevant event (-) Mobility critical infrastructure (routes and interfaces) with a maximum out-of-service period for all failures in infrastructure, including recovery time, less than or equal to 7 h due to the last climate-related event, with similar or harsher climate variables than the most probable scenario, for these infrastructures: a) Road based ( . . . )